


j?< 



SF 268 
.G88 
Copy 1 



OLEOMARGARINE. 



R E ^1 A R K S 



OF 



WILLIAM W. GROUT, 



OF VERiNlONX, 

IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



MAY 3 5. 188G, 



ON THE BILL TO TAX OLEOMARGARINE. 



'Ill fares the Land, to hasfeniiig ills a prey, 
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay ; 

Princes and Lords way flourish, or may fade, 

A breath can make them, as a breath has made ; 

But a bold peasantry, their country's pride — 
When once destroyed, can never be supplied." 

Goldsmith. 



WASHINGTON. 
188G. 



\ 



Oleoniarg-arine. 



« REMARKS 

OF 

WILLIAM W. GKOUT, 

OF VERMONT, 

In the House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, May 25, 1886. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration 
the bill (H. R. 83:^8) defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating 
the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine — 

Mr. GROUT said: 

Mr. Chairman: In what I have to say upon the proposition con- 
tained in this bill to tax the manulUcture and sale of oleomargarine I 
shall attempt to answer two questions. First, is such tax lawful; 
second, is it necessary? 

The answers to these questions will run somewhat together. But, 
first — 

IS IT LAWFUL? 

The right of taxation is one of the essential powers of government. 
Section 8, Article I of the Constitution, designates how, under our sys- 
tem, this power shall be exercised. It reads: 

Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises 
to pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the 
United States. 

Under this explicit grant of authority Congress has dealt with the 
subject of taxation in all its branches as the public necessities and gen- 
eral welfare have demanded. 

In the leading case of Hylon, plaintiff in error, vs. The United States 
(3 Dallas, 171), Mr. .Justice Patterson quotes approvingly from Smith's 
Wealth of Nations (volume 3, page 341), as follows: 

Consumable commodities, whether necessaries or luxuries, may be taxed in 
two dilferent ways; the consumer may eitherpayan annual sum on accountof 
his using or consuming goods of a certain kind, or the goods may be taxed while 
they remain in the hands of the dealer and before they are delivered to the con- 
sumer. 

The tax here spoken of was an excise tax the same as that proposed 
by this bill. Note the language: "Consumable commodities, whether 
necessaries or luxuries, are taxable." Hence the fact that oleomarga- 
rine is an alleged article of food and may be classed with necessaries 
can in no way affect the power of Congress to tax it. It can only be a 
fact addressed to the discretion of Congress in the exercise of the power. 
But if Congress exercise the discretion and impose the tax it has only 
done that which a plain grant of the Constitution empowers it to do. 
Though the tax be unwisely imposed, it is, nevertheless, lawful. If 



the tax should prove a mistake, it would be a mistake of fact and not 
of law; and the remedy would be not with the courts but with the peo- 
ple. The courts would liave no power to make correction; a subse- 
quent Congress would. 

The right to tax consumable commodities should not be confounded 
with the right to prohibit the production and .sale of them. IJut the 
distinction between the two, whicli is a broad one, has evidently been 
lost sight of by those who deny or doubt the power of Congress to lay 
this tax on oleomargarine. This is to be inferred from the liict that 
they cite the case of Tlie People th. Marx, decided in June last in the 
New York court of appeals (54 Sickles, j^age 377), as an authority against 
the constitutiouaHty of this bill. This case is upon the lips of every 
deleuder of bogus butter. It is contideutly referred to as an authority 
against any rightful legislative control of the subject. Now, the only 
applicability of the Marx case to the bill before us is that both relate 
to oleomargarine. 

The bill ])roposes to tax it. The Marx case says not one word about 
taxation. -It contains no hint even upon the subject. It simply holds 
a statute in New York which prohibited the manufactui-e and sale of 
oleomargarine unconstitutional, in a case where it was not shown that 
it was unwholesome, and in which it was admitted that it was not sold 
for butter, but was sold for just what it was. 

The head-note of the Marx case shows just what was decided. It is 
as follows: 

A legislative enaetiiient which aljsolutely proliiliits an important branch of 
industiy not shown to be injurious to the coniininiity an<l not I'riudulently con- 
ducted,. solely (or the reason tliat it competes with another industry and may 
reduce the price of an article of food, is unconstitutional. 

Now every good lawyer will agree that as the Marx case was made 
up the decision was a sound one. The difficulty in that case lay, in the 
first place, in the statute, which was one of absolute prohibition; and in 
the second place in the grounds upon which the prosecuting officer 
rested his case. 

It will appear also from a careful examination of the full text of this 
case that had it been shown that oleomargarine is unwholesome, or that 
it is made in imitation oi butter, and as a fraud upon butter, the court 
would have held even the prohibitory statute valid. Now, if upon these 
grounds a prohibitory statute would be valid, certainly there can be no 
objection to the bill before us, which only proposes, by a tax upon the 
article, to so identify it that this fraudulent product shall be sold for 
just what it is. 

There can be no doubt but this tax, if imposed, will be " lawful." 
The only real question is, is it " expedient?" 

IS IT NECESS.\RY? 

In answering this (juestion we must look just a little into the char- 
acter of oleomargarine and of the fraudulent trade in it. 

An ancient writer of high repute said: "God hath made man upright; 
but they have sought out many inventions." Oleomargarine is one of 
them. It must have been the very one that crowded in ahead of all 
others upon Solomon's sorrowing vision as he bewailed the departure of 
man from the "upright." In all the crookedness of man, in both ancient 
and modern times, the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine must 
stand first among his false and deceptive works. It is in the first place 
a counterfeit. It is studiously made to resemble in all resi^ects butter. 
And the resemblance is so close that only the microscope or a chemical 



analysis will detect the diflference; and some a-ssert that neither the 
microscope nor chemistry can tell the one IVom the other. 

But this last is one of the I'alsehoods of this iiilse business, to which 
is always added, "If science can not tell the difference, then what is 
the dilference? Why is it not as good as butter?" But I repeat, this 
should be branded as a I'alsehood. Certainly Professor Taylor's mi- 
croscope reveals even to the uupracticed eye an unmistakable ditier- 
ence, much like the difference between the green leaf of spring and 
the dead leaf of autumn. To this many gentlemen upon this floor can 
testify. But it is a counterfeit, a confesssd counterfeit, better calcu- 
lated to deceive than the most skillful counterfeit of the current coin 
or paper money of the United States. Like the pirate, who displays a 
iriendly flag, it sails under false colors; and like the pirate and the coun- 
terfeiter it takes from others without giving an equivalent in return. It 
is manufactured for 8 or9 cents perpound and sold to the consumer for 20 
or 30 cents per pound; not for what it is, but for pure butter; just as the 
counterfeit dollar is passed not for what it is, but for what it appears 
to be. But it is said that the manufacturer sells to the dealer for just 
what it is. In most instances very likely. So does the maker of coun- 
terfeit money supply the one who 'puts it into circulation for just what 
it is; but never at a fair profit only on what it cost him to make it. 
He would want at least about one-half the whole fruit of the fraud ; 
just as he who steals a horse would be willing to pass it to the receiver 
at perhaps half its value, who in turn would have a margin left for his 
share. So it is with this oleomargarine trade. Between the first cost 
and the price paid by the consumer enormous profits cluster along the 
way. If these profits were legitimate no fault could be found ; but'they 
are won by fraud. They are made by selling oleomargarine for butter. 
Not one pound in a million of this counterfeit stuff is bought and eaten 
by the consumer for what it is. Like the counterfeiter's victim, who 
"took it for a dollar," one always buys butter, but in blissful igno- 
rance he too often eats oleomargarine. The only way one can be certain 
is to establish a chemist's laboratory in his kitchen and plant a micro- 
scope by his plate. 

The oleomargarine trade is by no means a small affair. It is simply 
immense. It is estimated that at least 150,000,000 pounds of oleo- 
margarine were made in the United States during the last year— 7,500 
tons. At 8 cents per pound it cost $12,000,000; sold as butter at 25 
cents per pound the people paid for it $37, 500, 000— a downright swindle 
upon them of at least $25,000,000, allowing $500,000 for legitimate 
profit, if indeed there can be any such thing as legitimate profit in a 
fraudulent business like this. Can it be that a free people will let a 
fraud upon themselves of this magnitude go unwhippedof justice? Can 
it be that they will sit quietly by and let this counterfeit butter busi- 
ness fatten off their gullibility at the rate of $25,000,000 annually, in 
feet in a much larger sum in the future, for the business is rapidly in- 
creasing? 

If oleomargarine be the poor man's blessing, as is claimed, it shoulcl~7 
be secured to him at the poor man's price. But this will never be till / 
compelled, as proposed by this bill, to go upon the market in no guise I 
but its own and under no name but its owu.f As oleomargarine it will 
pay the iax proposed by this bill, and then reach the poor man's table 
at much less cost than it now does; if indeed it be fit to eat, of which 
a word in a moment. But it now sells for the price of butter, from 20 
to 30 cents per pound, and leaves the poor man without the blessing 



which it falsely promises him. It thus gathers in $25,000,000 ill-gotten 
gains aunuaily, the very harvest of fraud itself, and at the same time 
strikes a stagfziering blow upon an honest industry in which millions of 
the working; men and women of this country now <j;ain only a hard- 
earned livelihood. Now this is oleomargarine, an acknowledged coun- 
terfeit, but deceitfully passed for the true; intrenched behind the mill- 
ions it has filched from the people in the name of butter; false to its 
promises to the poor; the disturber of our industries; the very embodi- 
ment of falseliood and fraud. And yet this false- laced monster sits 
with us familiarly at table in the dress of an old Iriend, and makes his 
oily way into the very citadel of maii^s affections. Then, if in the silent 
watches of the night the stomach becomes suspicious that it may be 
'"entertaining an angel unawares," and yearn.s — for information as to 
the character of this nocturnal visitor, which the friends of oleomar- 
garine tell us comes as an angel laden with blessings for the race, it is 
respectfully referred to the Patent Office reports. [Laughter.] 

Volume 5 is taken down and opened to page 321), and the poor be- 
nighted stomach asks if the angel was made under patent No. 148767, 
which is as follows: "This substitute for butter" "consists of a base 
of yolk of eggs, butter, and milk, agitated in a zinc vessel that has 
been coated with a solution of niter." But hearing no response, it 
takes down volume 22 and opens to page 1489, and reads in patent No. 
266777 this formula for making a "suljstitute for butter" "consisting 
of cotton-seed oil or other vegetable oils treated with a solution of 
caustic soda in combination with liirinaceous flour, which had previ- 
ously been thoroughly cooked in salt water as described; incorporat- 
ing and agitating the mass, working in the oil, milk, coloring, and 
flavoring as iier process described." But still there is no responss. 
There can be no certainty of the parentage of the child in this patent; 
and lest the wondering stomach may find some worse formula for the 
manufacture of angels, it takes down volume 28 and looks hopefully 
for the pedigree of its particular guest in patent No. 301782, found on 
page 173: 

" The process consi.sts in first forming a soap emulsion of tlie fats or fatty oils 
withcausiic .soda; then precipitate the lyes; then applying ohlorinated alka- 
line lye, or chlorinated gas, to the soap emulsion, as described." 

But this formula is found to be so full of lyes (lies) and sounds so 
much like a receipt for making soap that the bewildered stomach aban- 
dons the iuiiuiry, declaring in tones of astonishment that oleomargarine 
is, indeed, the mystery of mysteries — a far prolbunder mystery than bash 
or sau.sage. [Laughter.] 

Let not this sad tale of a child without a fiither divert attention from 
the fact — let it the rather fi.x; the mind upon it — that so long as bastard 
butter is sold for the genuine no purchaser can be sure but that he is 
eating it, nor can he be sure either of what ingredients it may be com- 
posed. Itpresentsthe well-known condition of every illegitimate birth, 
namely, an uncertain paternity; and as a doubtful place in the pedi- 
gree may let in bad blood, so uncertainty as to the ingredients of coun- 
terfeit butter admi(i4 the po.ssibility that they may be unclean and un- 
wholesome. Who can look with entire composure upon this possibility ? 
Who will say that the things we eat ought not like Ca;sar's wife to be 
above suspicion ? 

It will not be pretended but that a substitute for butter made accord- 
ing to the formula of M. M6g6, the French inventor, is a wholesome 
food product. But this can not be said of all the American devices in 



which lard and vegetable oils and tallow take the place of margarine 
oil and in which various acids and alkalies are used, some of which, as 
every one knows, are not only unwholesome but absolutely dangerous. 
The following are a few of the many articles named in the many patents 
granted for the manufacture of substitute butter: Bisulphate of lime, 
borax, salicylic acid, benzoic acid, orris root, cotton-seed oil, bicarbon- 
ate of soda, glycerine, capsylic acid, alum, capsic acid, sulphite of soda, 
cows' udders, sulphuric acid, pepsin, tallow, lard, salt, corn starch, bu- 
tyric ether, caustic potash, castor oil, chalk, slippery-elm bark, caul, 
oil of sesame, oil of sunflower seed, olive oil, turnip-seed oil, bromachlo- 
ralum, chlorate of potash, oil of sweet almonds, oil of peanuts, peroxide 
of manganese, stomach of pigs, sheep, or calf, nitrate of soda, mustard- 
seed oil, nitric acid, dry blood albumen, sugar, butyric acid, bicarbon- 
ate of potash, and caustic soda. 

Of course it does not necessarily follow that all or any of these ar- 
ticles enter into the manufacture of the oleomargarine product of this 
country; but there is a strong probability that many of them do. The 
following extract from a letter to the newspaper press of this city by 
Mr. J. H. Crane, a reputable provision dealer here, contains facts worthy 
of consideration, and he stated the same in substance before the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture: 

It is notorious tliat wliat is called butterine is now generally made in soap 
factories. It is only a few days since that the undersigned had sent to him from 
a large soap factory at the West, a sample of soap and a sample of butterine. 
The Iwo go hand in hand together. Why is butterine made in soap factories? 
The reason is evident. It is because it can be made cheaper there. If " the ham- 
fat man " brings in more grease than is wanted for soap the surplus can be made 
into butterine. If he brings in more than is wanted for butterine thesurpluscan 
be turned into soap. In this way ihetwo play intoeacnother'shands. The pro- 
cess of bleaching and deodorizing is said to be about the same in each, thesame 
poisonous alkalies being used in each. If wrong in this I stand ready to be cor- 
rected. It is a mistaken idea that some have that butterine is never made of 
anything but the purest leaf lard add best creamer.v butter. It may be that 
soap manufacturers buy pure leaf lard to use in their business. If so I have 
never heard of it. Butterine can be made of soap-grease, and I believe it is 
made of soap-grease, and sometimes of the most disgusting kind. The bleach- 
ing and deodorizing process it is put through makes it impervious to taste or 
smell. 

The price it is sold at, it being sold just as low when pure butter is at 40 cents 
per pound as when it is 20, proves that but little, if any, btitter enters into its 
composition. It having no smell or taste of its own, all that is needed is that the 
little smell and flavor it has shall be that of butter, which is obtained by churn- 
ing it in buttermilk or milk. It is then salted and colored to suit the eye and 
taste, christened bysomefancy name, and put upon the market as butter. When 
the butterine men were buying up all the Elgin butter they could get at 40 cents 
per pound a drummer from a neighboring city tried to induce men to buy what 
he called his fancy brand of butterine at 12 cents per pound, agreeing to mark 
it "Snow Flake Creamery, Morning Star Creamery, RisingSunCreamery," orby 
any other high sounding name I might select, telling me he was selling it all 
over Wa.shington to dealers, who in tern sold it for butter, he marking it "Fresh 
Creamery Butter," or by any other name they chose to have put on it. 

But the worst remains to be told of this disreputable business. Formerly dead 
animals were collected and buried at a heavy expense. Now they command a 
premium, even to the rabid dogs. What becomes of them? Let the boiling 
establishments and the butterine factories answer. Horses dying with glanders 
or i>neumonia,and dogs dying with rabies are all gatliered up and carted to the 
boiling establishment, where tlie fat is extracted, put up in barrels and shipped 
away. This diseased fat. after being put in shipping order, is said to look a.s 
clean and nice as any other. What becomes of it? Where does it go, and for 
what purpose is it used? Is it marked to distinguish it from any other fat? I 
am told not by one who has been in the business. What assurance have we that 
it does not find its way to the butterine factories? None. 

But, says some one, it is by no means certain that any of these un- 
clean and unwholesome articles go into the manufacture of bogus but- 
ter. No, it is not certain that they do; but la it certain that they do 



8 

not? Perchance they do. " Perchance " soap- grease. "Ay, there's 
the rub;" and when upon the authority of a respectable gentleman like 
Mr. Crane, we find soap and butterine coming from the same factory 
it would seem to " rub" pretty clo,se. 

As bearing upon this point I will also give a brief extract from a re- 
cent letter of Wr. O. M. Tinkham, secretary of the Vermont Dairy- 
men's Association, to the Woodstock (Vt. ) Standard, in which among 
other things he says: 

I have a f'rieiKl living near Boston who keeps from six to eight hundred hogs. 
To feed them he has tlie wastes and swill from some of the large hotels in the 
city. All the meats, lish, Hesh and fowl, sauces, gravies, and all grease are 
dumped into one tub and carried out to the farm. This was fonuerly fed to the 
hogs, but was thought to be unhealthy by reason of too much grease, so he had 
large tanks made into which the stuff was dumped on arrival from the city, and 
■water added, the whole thoroughly steamed and left to cool, which left a good 
cake of the grease on top of the mass when cold. This was taken off and sold 
to the "venderer" in the city. The " venderer" is the person to whom all the 
dead hogs that come in on the trains, the dead cattle and hors^es from the street, 
are sent to be disposed of. Once when my friend ^vas in there he saw 1 think 
it was fifty tubs, of 30 pounds each, new Vermont spruce tubs, and lifting the 
covers saw they were filled with this "neutral grease," and said he had no 
doubt some of the grease he sold was in those tubs, of which I have no doubt, 
and that it was far better than some of the rest which made up the shipment. 
These tubs were marked for shii)ment to a man in New England who was run- 
ning a creamery. 

Now, both Mr. Tinkham and Mr. Crane state facts which tend very 
strongly to show that the "neutral grease" of the "venderer" does 
find its way into counterfeit butter. 

The man running a creamery in New England to whom those fifty 
tubs of " veuderer's grease " were directed was doubtless running the 
fiame kind of creamery that the man was who otfered to Mr. Crane his 
fancy brand of butterine at 12 cents per pound to be marked " Snow 
Flake Creamer}^ " &c. This New England creamery man, however, 
may have made some pure butter. 

The tact is, bogus butter can be more cheaply produced in connection 
with the manufacture of creamery butter than elsewhere, because of the 
plentiful supply of buttermilk in which to churn the compound, and 
thus give it the flavor of butter; just as the bouqitet is given to wines 
by the use of some aromatic substance. Every variety of imitation but- 
ter product, and their name is legion, is churned either in milk or but- 
termilk else it would be without the butter flavor and would deceiveno 
one. At the creamery the buttermilk is at hand for this purpose; 
whereas if the margarine factory be remote a supply must be brought 
from a distance. 

One of the great packing establishments in Chicago have of the El- 
gin creameries the buttermilk in which to baptise, in the name of 
butter, probably a thou.sand tons a year of this counterfeit product; and 
pay for it, if the statement of their agent now in charge of their goods 
in the Ceutral Market in this city can be relied upon, for he made the 
statement to me, $100 per day. Now, this is almost equal to the wag's 
formula for making a first-class article of chicken soup for boarding- 
house consumption, namely, drive a hen through a disl^ of hot water. 
Oinnporn! mores! [Laughter.] 

But enough about the character of counterfeit butter. It may be that 
the cheap grease known in the market as "neutral grease" when sub- 
lected to treatment by the alkalies and acids named in the various imi- 
tation-butter formulas is not absolittely unwholesome; for chemistry 
works wonders in the transformation of physical substances. I say this 
may be, but suppose it is, who wants to eat it? That this "neutral 



9 

grease'' is to a great extent used in the manufacture of these imitation 
products no reasonable person will doubt. The different formulas them- 
selves prove it by the chemical agents which they contain for the mani- 
fest purpose of deodorizing and correcting it. Besides, as every one 
knows, it is a counterfeit and a fraud; and who is verdant enough to 
suppose that the counterl'eiter would be at all scrupulous as to the ma- 
terials he used in his business? The object is to make the counterfeit 
article at the least possible expense for the sake of the greatest possi- 
ble profit. And if "neutral grease " can be obtained at one- fourth or 
one-third the expense of tallow or lard, who for a moment doubts which 
the counterfeiter would use? 

But this stuff, even if not absolutely unwholesome, is not fit for a 
self-respecting American citizen to eat. It might answer for a digger 
Indian, who lives on snakes, or for the Mexican peon, who in his pov- 
erty consumes with avidity every organic part of the animal, excepting 
only the horns, hoofs, hair, and bones. It might answer for these, but 
it does not comport with our American civilization. It is no credit to it. 
It has no proper place in it, and it could not exist for a moment except 
through fraud and imposition. The American people can be in better 
business. With ' ' cattle upon a thousand hills, ' ' and many, many thou- 
sand hills scattered all over our vast domain, where now grows wild 
grass or stands "the forest primeval," but where hardy husband- 
men might graze and milk their herds of kine, and thrifty housewives 
might emulate the virtue and valor of Jael, the wife of Heber the 
Kenite, who "brought forth butter in a lordly dish," does it not seem 
like small business, like the disreputable business it is, for an able- 
bodied American citizen to be trying to find out how chemistry can 
extract from "cow's udders" the oil that shall give to tallow and lard 
and the intestinal and offal fats and ' ' neutral grease ' ' and the vegetable 
oils the taste of butter, thereby enabling the unscrupulous to sell them, 
after they are washed in buttermilk, for butter, and thus put these cheap 
and nasty fats into competition with the golden issues of the house- 
wife's churn? 

And this brings me to the chief reason for the passage of this bill, 
namely, the ruinous effect of this dishonest competition upon the great, 
in fact the greatest, industry of this Coventry — an industry which while 
it gives employment to millions of capital and millions of men and 
women is yet made up from an aggregation of humble interests which, 
when treated fairly, only aftbrd very small profits in return for much 
hard work. 

Dairying is the largest .single branch of American agriculture. The 
butter, milk, and cheese produced for the last year, as estimated by re- 
liable experts, amounted to the enormous sum of 1564,959,500. This 
is more than four times the value of the entire oat crop of the country ; 
more than five times the value of the pig-iron product; more than twice 
the value of the iron and steel product; about four and one-half times 
the value of the cotton crop, and about $150,000,000 more than theeu- 
tire wheat crop of the country. The amount invested in milch cows 
is about §700,000,000 — more than the entire capital stock of all the 
national banks of the country. '^ 

Not only is dairying the great leading branch of our agriculture but / 
it is so related to every other branch of that great industry that when ' 
it suffers the whole feels the depressing effect. Especially is this true 
in our older States where the soil, well-nigh exhausted by long-con- 
tinued cropping, is arrested from further deterioration and brought 



10 

back to a high degree of fertility by dairy farming, and thus worn-out 
lands are restored and more of every kind of a<;ricultnnil product is 
produced, more I'orage for auimuls and more food for man. It is esti- 
mated that in dairyuiii at least four miilionsof our population are em- 
ployed, while ajiricuiture in all its branches gives emi)loynient to 
almostone-half of our entire population who therefrom feed and clothe 
themselves and feed and clothe the other half 

Without agriculture we should go both hungry and cold. We should 
relapse into barbarism, should go back to the skins of beasts for clothing 
and hunt again the wild boar for food. A thrifty agriculture makes 
every other work of civilization possible. Without it the earth, the 
source of all wealth, would fail to yield her fruits and every other enter- 
prise and industry would languish. We have already seen that the 
dairy interest is the very soul itself of our agriculture. Now, shall this 
interest be jireserved, or shall it l)e sacriliced, not to a fair competition — 
if the competition were lair no fault would be found — but to a down- 
right fraud, to a lilthy counterfeit, masquerading in the stolen livery of 
the very industry it is seeking to overthrow? [Applause.] 

Even if the competition were fair it would still present a serious ques- 
tion of public policy; one not only involving public health but the pub- 
lie intelligence and morals also, namely, whether we should kill out the 
dairy industry and cease to be a butter-eating people and feed upon the 
coarser and more cloying animal I'ats, thus taking a step back toward 
the raw tallow and lard which were the delight of our Saxon ances- 
tors in the forests of Germany. It involves also another question which 
takes strong hold upon the labor problem, which has long ve.xed the 
governments of Europe, and now threatens the peace and prosperity of 
this Kepublic. It is this: Whether a few capitalists giving employ- 
ment to a few thousand men shall be allowed to overwhelm with a 
fraudulent business an honest industry which gives employment to 
millions, and which is the very cream of that grand pursuit which, 
through the common mother of the race, provides ibr us all. 

You have just pa.ssed a labor-arbitration bill and sent out a special 
committee to collect data for the adjustment of the delicate relations 
between capital and labor. Bat right here, in the disposition of this 
bill, is an opportunity to deal with the labor question from the very 
foundation, and in a way to dispense with arbitration bills and sjiecial 
committees, or make them a standing necessity. It has been said 
that "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." Enact- 
ments preventive of threatening evils are always wiser than the wisest 
provisions for the correction of those evils after they are developed. 
It is always the highest achievement of legislation to formulaLe laws 
which in their practical operation shall reconcile antagonisms and bring 
all interests into harmony. This can only be done by giving all men 
and all honest enterprises a fair chance. 

Now, pass this bill and you take an important step in both remedial 
and preventive legislation. You at once relieve the dairy industry of 
the killing fraud which now completely paralyzes it. And as one of 
the immediate results the milch-cows, whichas shown by the last report 
of the Commissioner of Agriculture were depreciated during the last 
year to the amount of $32,751,392, will be restored and doubtless some- 
what advanced. This vast sum will thus be added to the exchangeable 
value of property not belonging to capitalists but to the miilionsof hard- 
working men who own tho.se cows and are struggling to pay with the 
income from them the mortgages which capital holds upon their farms. 



11 

Not only this, but the nnmber of cows will be greatly increased. There 
will not be slaughtered 30,000 of them for beef in the city of Chicago 
for the year to come, as your committee reported there was in the year 
that is past. They will be wanted for the dairy. To this extent cer- 
tainly there will be an incretised demand upon those who breed cattle 
for beef; and that branch of agriculture, now sadly discouraged, will 
take a fresh start. More hay and grain must be provided for the sup- 
port of this increased number of animals, both ibr beef and the dairy, 
and more men found to feed and care for them. A corresponding de- 
mand for labor on the farm will surely follow and will draw oft' from 
the employ of the great corporations, to which all surplus labor tends, 
the discontented ones who are now the leaders in labor disturbances, 
but who would find in the great, open field of agriculture, every de- 
partment of which would feel the impulse of a restored dairy industry, 
an opportunity to gain for themselves and their families a subsistence, 
nay, more, a competence; and this is how thepass:ige of this bill would 
begin to solve the labor problem. It would begin at the right end of it. 
[Applause. ] 

It would be far more to the point than arbitration bills and investi- 
gating committees. A restored dairy industry would surely occupy, 
with valuable improvements, new areas of land, and as surely restore 
to fertility the old, much of which now lies fallow, thus adding mill- 
ions to the productive and taxable wealth of the country. Nor is this 
all. A return to the production of honest butter would restore our ex- 
port trade. For the last five years, since false butter ha,s usurped the 
place of the true, there has been a steady decline in the annual export 
of American butter. That which was bought and shipped for genuine 
too often turned out to be spurious. As the result no dealer would risk 
the sale of American dairy products in foreign markets, and the trade fell 
ofl'. The extent of this decline is shown by the fact that in 1881 the 
total amount of American dairy exports was $22,636,272. In 1885 it 
was but .$14,086,055, a decrease in four years of $8,548,220. Instead 
of this there should have been an equal or greater increase. There is 
still another humiliating fact in this connection. It is this: much of 
the butter which we exported in 1885 was not handled by American 
merchants, but by Canadian merchants, who first bought in our mar- 
kets and shipped to Canada. Then, when reshipped from Canadian 
ports, it would go upon the European markets as Canadian butter, 
which is not 3^et under suspicion like our own. But let this same but- 
ter, perhaps perfectly pure, be shipped from an American port or by 
an American merchant, and it could be sold only at a reduced price. 

Thus, because of these iraudulent imitations is the commerce of this 
the foremost people in all the earth driven like a culprit to the use of 
an alias in order to make its way into foreign markets; thus also are 
Amei'ican merchants deprived of the profits of handling this merchan- 
dise in those markets; thus is an annual outlet for nearly $9,000,000 
worth of dairy products closed and the business to that extent depressed ; 
and thus as a people are we that amount poorer than we should be if 
that trade were not interrupted. We have that amount less annually 
of circulating medium, that amount less of gold and silver; for remem- 
ber that our foreign exchange is always in gold and silver. Now pass 
this bill and give to American dairy products a reputable entrance into 
foreign markets and you will bring into the United States within the 
next ten years of foreign gold and silver $85,000,000 at least, and proba- 
bly more. But this is a larger sum than proposed by the Blair bill for 



12 

education at which so many upon this floor stand aghast. Pass this 
bill and you correct all the evils arising from counterfeit butter and put 
not only tlie dairy industry but the whole vast industry of agriculture 
upon a career ol' prosperity; and in its train shall follow all the other 
industries and the arts and the best culture of a progressive civilization. 
Refuse it, and you perpetuate all the evils above enumerated and en- 
gender otliers which in turn shall ' ' become the hatch and brood of time. " 
You deliberately protect a Iraud which is sapping the very foundations 
of the farmer's success and crippling his every effort to get on in the 
world. You help capital, which holds the mortgage on his farm and 
owns al.so the oleomargarine factory, to destroy the butter marketand 
thus deprive him of his last opportunity to keep down the interest on 
that mortgage, and then take from him the farm itself and turn him 
into the street a vagabond and a tramp; and when next you hear from 
him he is in the front rank of some labor agitation. Then to tide over 
the trou])les produced by your unwise legislation a Congressional in- 
vestigating committee will be in order. 

By refusing this bill you continite a policy calculated to destroy the 
hope of the husbandman and drive not a few only but thousands from 
agriculture into other departments of labor already overcrowded. Can 
yon afford to do this ? Can you^atlbrd to break down and disperse into 
other pursuits the hardy tillers of the soil, thus lessening the number 
of producers and increasing the number of consumers ? A sound pub- 
lic policy lies in just the opposite direction — in developing and foster- 
ing every department of our agriculture, whereby enough may be gath- 
ered of the products of the earth to feed and clothe and preserve from 
distress and agitation all other departments of industry, and at the 
same time contribute in the most effectual manner possible to the na- 
tional wealth. But enough. The general wisdom of this bill will not 
be disputed. Its Justice to the farmer must be admitted. The salu- 
tary effect it will have upon our industries is apparent. The general 
demand of the American people for wholesome articles of food calls 
for it. 

But, say certain eminent lawyers upon this floor, it is unconstitu- 
tional. Of course, if it contravene the Constitution, however desirable 
it may be from every point of view, it should not receive the sanction 
of this body. But let us see. 

We have already seen that the power of Congress to tax whatever 
article it will is limited only by its discretion. 

But, says the objector, while Congress may tax, it can tax only for 
the purpose of revenue; and since the professed purpose of this bill is 
not to raise revenue but to regulate the sale of an article of commerce, 
it follows, says the objector, that there is no constitutional authority for 
it. But the bill proposes to raise, and if it becomes a law it will raise, 
revenue. Now, is not this fact alone a full answer to the objection? 
But, says the objector, though it may raise revenue that is not the 
motive in passing the bill. To this it is sufficient reply to say, that if 
Congress has power to levy the tax, and does levy it in legal Ibrra, the 
particular motive from which this is done is of no legal consequence 
whatever. It would fall within the rule laid down by Jacob Colla- 
mer, who died the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
of the United States Senate, while a representative in that body from 
the little State of Vermont, and whose statue the State has since put in 
Memorial Hall as a fair type of the Vermonter and of Senatorial dig- 
nity and learning. 



13 

said""^' "^''^^ "^^^^ *^^ ^^""^^ ^^ ^^'^ supreme court of Vermont he 

Improper motives can never alter the character of a leffal act Whatever a 
man has a leg:al right to do he may do with impunity, (irvt.,22.) "^^^^^^^'^ 
So a legislative act which is in itself constitutional will not be made 
unconstitutional because it was passed from an improper motive 

Ihe motive can not be reviewed judicially. It may be reviewed by 
the constituencies represented in this body but not by the courts 

Again, a legislative act such as the Constitution allows, which .serves 
a constitutional purpose, does not become unconstitutional l)ecause it 
at the same tune .serves another purpose, which of itself would not brin<^ 
the act within the purview of the Constitution. 

Here the iamiliar principlegoverningthe jurisdiction of cases before 
courts in chancery would apply. If the bill in e.juity present a single 
pmut where relief can not be had nuder the strict rules of law and sev- 
eral points where the law would afford relief and thus defeat eqnitv 
jurisdiction, yetacourt of equity will always take jurisdiction upon the 
sing e point, and will then do cpiity upon all the matters presented by 
the bill, even though the principal points decided be those which the 
court could not have taken jurisdiction of alone. 

In like manner if Congress have constitutional authority to tax: im- 
itation butter and pass a law to that effect the law is not' unconstitu- 
tional becau.se at the same time it may incidentally prevent the saleof 
It for genuine Initter. This bill contains no provisions except such as 
lay the ta.x- and provide for its collection. If those provisions are such 
as to prevent at the same time the fraudulent sale of oleomar^rarine 
that can create no constitutional or other objection to the law It 
should the rather be accepted as high proof of its wisdom. A law which 
will cut two ways and cut all the time for the right will not be held 
in disfavor by either the courts or the people 

_ Another objection by these left-handed defenders of the Constitution 
IS, that this bill takes from the States the police power which the Con- 
stitution leaves to them. 

They also say, even if Congress have the power it is too small busi- 
ness for the National Legislature, and asmatterof policy should be left 
to the States. 

But taxation can not be effective without complete police power over 
the article taxed; and as to the policy of Congress in dealing with this 
subject a precedent may be found in section :i:i:iH of the Revised Statutes 
which has been on the statute-book eighteen years, and which is for the 
protection of the wine indu.stryof this country against imitation wines ' 
and If some gentleman will tell us the difference between this section 
and the bill before us I will yield to him now 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas. I would like to ask the gen- 
tleman If he IS referring now to the Federal statutes '^ 

Mr. GROUT. Yes, sir. 

Mr BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas. And do I understand him to 
^"^V rM'^TTrlf"'";^ '"^''^ *'*'^ levying this tax upon imitation wine-? 

Mr. GROUT Yes, sir; in section 3328, which I wouldVead had I the 

"Mr^RpTr T'mp}nV?^^'!^"ri^^'" ^"^ '"" "^^^* '"^ time is extended. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas. No. I am not dLsputing the 
statement; but it has escaped my observation, and I only asked for in- 
formation. It is a subject that I shall look into with interest. 

Mr. CUiLHEON. What machinery is provided for collecting the 



l\rr. GROUT. It is quite meager; hut it is provided. How opera- 
tive it i.s I do not know. But the statute is lliere, and tlie National 
Congress is committed to the policy. The statute puts the collection 
of this wine tax under the control of the Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue the same as this bill proposes to put this bogus-butter tax. 

Now, who will say that a tax of !0 cents per pound on imitation 
butter IS not as defensible on every ground as a tax of 10 cents per pint 
on imitation wines? And who will say it is any smaller or less worthy 
business to protect the dairy interest, which emp'oys 4,(K)(),00U laborers, 
with an annual productof $564,959,500, than the wine industry, whose 
exact annual product I am unable to ascertain; for, strange as it may 
seem, the Tenth Census gives no intbnnation upon the subject, nor can 
any be obtained at any of the Government Departments. But that 
pro<luct is probably only of a few hundred thousand dollars' value, and 
in the production of it probably only a few thousand laborers are em- 
ployed. 

Mr. xMILLIKEN. If it be insisted that it was not competent to tax 
an industry out of existence, let me ask if it is not nevertheless true 
that we have taxed out of existence the State banks? 

Mr. GROUT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. And further, I would ask if the decisions of the 
Supreme Court that States can not tax the Government bonds were not 
founded upon the principle that if that power was granted to them they 
might tax the bonds to their full amount, their full par value, and 
therefore tax them out of existence? 

Mr. GROUT. Certainly, and you will see before I close that the 
States have not the power to give adequate relief from these fraudulent 
butter imitations. That Congre-ss alone has the power to do it. More- 
over, if you will look at section 3272, Revised Statutes, you will find 
Congress h;is imposed heavy penalties against the introduction into 
distilled spirits of any ingredient or substance calculated to give ficti- 
tious pjroof. Now, shall it be said that the members of this House have 
made laws to preserve the proof of the whisky they drink and keep from 
adulteration the wine they drink, but think it too small business to pro- 
vide against the adulteration of the butter which their wives and chil- 
dren eat? 

But in closing, while it is apparent that Congress has full power over 
this Iraudulent butter question as an incident of taxation, and while 
■we also find Congress has already committed itself to that control in 
precisely the manner proposed by this bill, yet if other authority were 
wanting it may be found in that distinct grant of power by the Consti- 
tution to regulate commerce among the States. The clause is as fol- 
lows: 

The Congress shall have power * * * to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. 

It is true that the only exercise of this power by Congress thus far 
over interstate commerce has been confined to the navigable waters of 
the United States. But the day is not tar distant when Congress will 
pass a law — as it ought long before this to have done — regulating trans- 
portation between the States by land. Nor is this power limited to 
the .subject of transportation merely. It also extends to the status »f 
merchandise taken from one State into the markets of another. In no 
provision of the Constitution was there a display of higher wisdom than 
in this grant to the National Legislature of full control over commerce 
between the States, nor is any constitutional grant plainer. Though 



15 

Congress has not yet entered upon the full exercise of this power yet 
every attempted exercise of it by the States, no matter in what iorm 
whether by an attempted control of navigable waters or by a tax 
upon freight carried Irom one State into another, or upon freio-ht car- 
ried across a State, or by the imposition of a tax upon article" manu- 
factured in one State and sold in another, the Supreme Court has in- 
variably held that it was the attempted exercise of a power which the 
States do not possess, but that the power is lodged by the Constitution 
in Congress alone. (See Gibbons c.s. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 1: R. R Co-, vs 
Fuller, 17 Wall., 5G0; Delaware R. R. tax, 18 Wall., 206; R. R. Co vs 
Richmond, 19 Wall., 584; R. R. Co. vs. Maryland, 21 Wall., 456; Downl 
hall vs. City of Alexandria, 7 Howard, 283.) 

In commerce with the Indian tribes it was held in United States vs 
Forty-three gallons of whisky (93 U. S., 188), that Congress may pro- 
hibit the transportation or sale in the Indian country of intoxicating 
liquors. And remember that Congress has no greater power over com- 
merce with the Indian tribes than it has over that between the States 
but precisely the same. ' 

Thus do we see that control of this whole subject of commerce among 
the States, and every phase of it, notonly relating to the transportation of 
merchandise but the sale of it also, belongs not to the States but to Con- 
gress. Now to apply this principle to the bill before us. 

Take for illustration two States. Massachusetts, with about five and 
one-half times the population of Vermont, makes about one-third as 
much butter. As the result Vermont butter finds its way into Massa- 
chusetts markets, and there encounters these imitation products, which 
the laws of Massachusetts fail to prevent being sold as butter, thus put- 
ting Vermont butter at a very serious disadvantage. 

We have seen that if Massachusetts were to pass a law putting Ver- 
mont proflucts under some disadvantage, whether in transportatTon or 
sale in her market, it wou'-d be an invasion of the power of Congress 
over this subject, and would be set aside by the Supreme Court. Now 
if instead of this positive act, Massachusetts were to neglect to give 
Vermont products suitable protection against these fraudulent imita- 
tions, and thus do Vermont a negative inju.stice, would it be any less 
an injustice? And where but in Congress is the power of correction? 
And what would a law like that proposed by this bill, which would re- 
lieve Vermont butter in Massachusetts from these fraudulent imita- 
tions, be but a regulation of commerce among the States? Where but 
to Congress can the Vermont farmer go for relief? Certainly not to 
the Massachusetts Legislature, lor he is not represented there and 
perhaps for the sake of cheap butter Massachusetts may wink at the 
fraud. 

But, inasmuch as the Massachusetts delegation is believed to be a 
unit for this bill, let us suppose what is far more probable, that Massa- 
chusetts really wants to be rid of these imitation products; and accord- 
ingly re-solves that as inasmuch as no oleomargarine is manufactured 
in Massachusetts— which I hope is true, but have my fears— that none 
shall be brought into the State from other States. But we have already 
seen, upon the authority of the Supreme Court, that Massachusetts has 
no power to do this. She can not prevent oleomargarine beiugshipped 
into her jurisdiction from New York and Chicago, were she to trvever 
so hard, which would leave Massachusetts powerless to do justice to 
Vermont if she would; and Vermont would be powerless, whatever 
course Massachusetts might take. This illustration will apply not to 



16 

Vermont and Massachusetts alone, nor to butter alone, but to all the 
States of the Union and to every other article of merchandise that may 
be produced in one State and consumed in another. Now, who fails to 
see tliat the only power to relieve in this matter is vested in Congress? 

Who fails to see how utterly chaotic is the doctrine declared by the 
learned Judiciary Committee of this House, that there is no power in 
Congress over this subject and that "legislation, if proper, must be 
sought from the States," thus placing the authority of the States in 
this matter above that of Congress, when the States have no power 
whatever and Congress has full power? What a bedlam of conllicting 
interests between the States would this doctrine of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee foster? It is withal an anti-national doctrine, a dangerous doc- 
trine, and leads to anarchy. It is born of that now exploded philos- 
ophy which a ([uarter of a century ago so bewildered a certain well- 
meaning but weak "public functiouary" that he was not aWe to find 
any power in the Constitution to coerce a State. But the American 
people found a way to coerce a State; and they will find a way to re- 
lieve themselves from fraudulent butter products which are at once a 
scandal to the country and a glaring wrong to an honest industry. 
They will find a way, because the Constitution, by a plain provision, 
gives Congress power over this subject; and the people are here in Con- 
gress in the persons of their representatives. 

This absolute power over commerce between the States given by the 
Constitution to the National Government is one of the principal badges 
of the national sovereignty. It is an important, far-reaching power, and 
should be duly magnified. The future will bring it into exercise more 
than the past has done. The rapidly increasing commerce between the 
States will recjuire from Congress constant supervision, and new rules 
will be required as new emergencies arise. In interstate commerce, 
which will increase with our increasing numbers and better facilities 
for intercommunication, shall be found the strongest future bond of 
union between these States. A free and fair interchange of commodities 
between the remote sections of the country will to our political and 
social relations add the ties of trade, than which between peoples and 
States none are stronger; and thus, in a vast domestic commerce, so 
regulated by Congress as to be mutually beneficial to all sections and 
all industries, shall be heard — 

In the rupliiiig wheels 
Of trade's tumultuous jar — 

the richest music of the Union. 

Down the future, as our population becomes denser and our commer- 
cial rivalries sharper and our accumulated wealth greater, who can tell 
how this paternal authority of the National Government maj' be used 
to allay those rivalries, to check the greed of monopolies, to protect one 
State against the fraudulent products of another, and bring all depart- 
ments of our domestic commerce, which is but the sum of our domestic 
industries, into such relations with eachotheras thateach part shall con- 
tiibute to the vigor of every other part, and thus create a harmonious 
system in which labor shall lindeTuplpyment, capital shall have its own, 
and every honest industry a fair chance? Now this will be the prol)lem 
for the future statesmen of this country to solve. This problem is, in 
fact, crowding upon us to-day. We have .seen how this measure before 
us reaches out into all these questions. We have also seen that Con- 
gress has a double power over the subject. Let us then rise to the oc- 
casion and pass this bill. [Applause.] 



17 



[From the five minutes^ debate of May 26.] 
Mr. GROUT I understood the gentleman from Arkansas fMr 
JiRECKlNRiDGE] when first upon the floor this morning to have ques- 
t oned the correctness of my statement on yesterday that Congress was 
t7^%T'''''}'\''' the principle of protecting the industrial prod- 
ucts of the couutiy from fraudulent imitations. I made that statement 
in substance and cited in support of it section 3328 of the Revised 
Statutes ot the United States, which I did not then have time to read, 
ihe gentleman from Arkansas incorporated into his remarks so much 
ot that section as suited the purpose of his argument this morning. I 
desire now to read the whole of it. It is as follows: 
1 n^*ii?,'o^^"''^" ?".^>1 Wines, liquors, or compounds known or denominated as wine 

fl h>,rh -^r? ^''-^""^ ^''''''^•' '^'"^ °" ^" 'iquors, normade from grapes «.muUs 
J. .Ifj! J o"^. 'ernes grown m the United States, but produced bv being recthed 
oi mixed with distilled spirits or by the infusion of any matter in sn^its to be 
talnfM'"''V°'"^'.*f;!'''"*"*« for wine, there shall be ^vied and^co ec ed a 
cefus per'bowl'''o?n.'ok.^ ^''"'^^■^•'- «°"''^»""g ""^ "^ore than i pin? or of 20 
quart and at the" ime ,.,? f '=''"'''^"}'»S- "^o^e than 1 pint and not more than 1 
ever the «un^^ '"'^i '*.''^"" q»a"tity of such merchandise, how- 

t e o^- ,?^^^-^o^"''^'"■"-• I^'-escribe ; and the absence of such stamp from any bot- 

Now, sir, il^ a tax of lU cents per pint on imitation wines is not for the 
purpose of protecting and encour.aging the production of genu?^e w ne^ 
for one I am unable to understand what it is for. The inventive g^ntS 
man Irom Arkansas says that this tax is for the prote(?tion of the rfvenue 
which he Government derives from the import duty on foreig^ wLes 

w?n. ^^%''' ^ ^''''''' '^'^ '"■'*' P^^' "i"'^'^ ^"^ champagne or sparklinc; 
wine and 2d cents per quart on all still wines. Every one knows that 
th s duty IS tor the protection of the wine industry of this runtry 
that upon the American wine product there is no internal-revenue tfx 

: mrproS^'etrir *'^ ^^^-^^'^^^^ ^^^'^-^^^ *^^^ ^^^^y^ 

Now, suppose that the assertion of the gentleman from Arkansas be 

tiWwhichletitbeunderstoodisonlysupWd-uamely,thatthrtax 
01 10 cents per pint on imitation wines is really for the purpose of more 

P^nS'f ^r"''*f ^. *^' ^"ty «" foreign wines, would it not still o^t 
t^^ I ^ ?' protection of genuine American wines, inasmuch Jthlt 
import duty is for tlie protection of those wines ^ 

It seems like a solecism in argument to claim otherwise The fact 
remains however upon the very tiice of the statute itself that this tTx 
is for the protection of American wine products against fraudulent 
American imitations; and no amount of .sophistry call break he force 

^in.7'^.ri"n ^^'7''''* ^* '"^'^y ''« ^«^t^' tl'^-^t section 3328 i.s a prec- 
edent for the bill before us. ^ 

But there is upon foreign butter as well as upon foreign wines an im- 



GRO- 



18 



000 891 371 7 



port duty, and if an excise tax of 10 cents per pint upon imitation 
wines helps the Government collect the tariff duty on imported wines, 
we will let the gentleman have his argument and give him this 10-cent 
tax on imitation butter to help in the collection of the duty on im- 
ported butter. 

May 29, 1886. 

Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairnuiu, I rise to a question of privilege — the 
privilege of not being classed with any set of men whose convictions 
are at all " mixed " upon the question now under consideration — the 
privilege, to be more specific, of nofgoing into the Record in this de- 
bate as from the State of Pennsylvania, as yesterday's issue, on page 
5254, in giving remarks of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hitt], 
puts me. Ordinarily, sir, I might not object to being credited to the 
grand old State of Pennsylvania — the State of "brotherly love," the 
nobility and hospitality of whose people are proverbial; but I can not 
permit it in this connection for the reason that her Representatives on 
this floor are somewhat * ' mixed ' ' on this question of oleomargarine, 
some of them showing a strange disposition to pay their devotions at 
the shrine of this myriad monster, this mixed mystery of the modern 
magician. Hence, I ask that the Rec^oed at the point I have indicated 
may be corrected and that I may be credited where I belong. 

Mr. KELLl^Y. Pennsylvania makes no objection. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GROUT. I thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, only for the kind 
consent of the distinguished gentleman it might have been difficult. 

Mr. BAYNE. My friend will allow me to suggest that when the 
vote shall be taken on this bill it will be found that the Representa- 
tives of Pennsylvania are not very much "mixed." 

My. grout. Very likely; but I want to be credited where I be- 
long, since Judge Kelley is willing I should be; and that is to the little 
but constant State of Vermont, whose people neither make nor eat oleo- 
margarine, but do make 25,000,000 pounds of butter annually, with 
which .you may butter your bread and not feel imder the knife-blade 
as you do it the \^iggling kick of a million animalcules. [Laughter.] 

But, since the gentleman tiom Pennsylvania, my friend Colonel 
Bayxe, speaks hopefully of ihe Pennsylvania delegation, let me ask 
that this correction be made without prejudice to him and without 
prej udice also to all others of that delegation who prefer butter to oleo- 
margarine. [Applause.] 



O 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDDaT13717 




Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



